But escaping economic controls requires more money than most people have. How do you get a job that's been exported overseas because the cost of doing business here is too high?

If you don't like it where you are, isn't it your responsibility to move somewhere more to your liking? That's what you've been preaching for weeks now. Which is it? Go where the jobs are, or stay home and bitch?

1ball wrote:

How do you recover property value that decreases due to excessive taxation?

Is it the government's responsibility to look after your property values and make sure they stay within limits that you define? Buying property is a risk, just like any other durable good. Sometimes they increase in value, sometimes they tank. Either way, it's none of the government's business. The government's business is: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." and that's it.

1ball wrote:

How do you save for your future when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else?

Don't like it? Quit your idiotic support of our current two-party system of government. One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results each time." Stop insanely supporting the Republicans. Stop insanely supporting the Democrats. Support candidates whose core values you believe in. If there's no political party that has the same beliefs that you do, then start one. But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people to vote for the party that will only fuck you a little bit, instead of the other party, which will fuck you right up the cornhole without any lube...

But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people to vote for the party that will only fuck you a little bit, instead of the other party, which will fuck you right up the cornhole without any lube...

Joined: 8/14/2009Posts: 6,092Location: Sharing my life with Simplicity, United States

MrNudiePants wrote:

Don't like it? Quit your idiotic support of our current two-party system of government. One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results each time." Stop insanely supporting the Republicans. Stop insanely supporting the Democrats. Support candidates whose core values you believe in. If there's no political party that has the same beliefs that you do, then start one. But refrain from the impossibly stupid act of telling people to vote for the party that will only fuck you a little bit, instead of the other party, which will fuck you right up the cornhole without any lube...

Unless you like it like that.

His arguments are circular and have no end. Presented with differing views he makes statements like 'it would be virtually impossible' or 'how do you save for the future when the gov takes it and gives it to somebody else'

These are nonsensical points. It doesn't matter how you answer because he will simply go back to the beginning of his talking points. It's double speak and just by trying to debate the details allows him to keep the conversation traveling in a circle.

I go back and say there is no difference. Both parties waste, both parties pander and both parties lie. Those are the provable facts. Pick up a paper and the details are there, issue after issue. 1ball, if you want to vote on your knees, I'm going to support your right to do it, but you could at least return the favor.

Now, go ahead and put the needle back on the record so we can hear again how one must suck just a little less than another. We are just dying to hear it again.

1ball wrote: It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time.

MrNudiePants wrote:

1ball wrote: It's easy to escape moral controls. People do that all the time.

Only immoral people.

People who reject the morality others are trying to impose on them. A legal code is imposed. A moral code must be voluntarily accepted.

1ball wrote: But escaping economic controls requires more money than most people have. How do you get a job that's been exported overseas because the cost of doing business here is too high?

Quote:

If you don't like it where you are, isn't it your responsibility to move somewhere more to your liking?

It's not a matter of responsibility to leave. The poorer people in our society hurt themselves by doing what drives jobs away, because they aren't welcome in the places the jobs move to. Immigration laws keep them out.

1ball wrote: How do you recover property value that decreases due to excessive taxation?

Quote:

Is it the government's responsibility to look after your property values and make sure they stay within limits that you define?

If the federal government causes property values to drop, state property tax revenues are hurt. If the state tries to keep the revenues up anyway, that hurts property values even more. Eventually the state loses population. It's already happened to union shop states like Michigan.

Quote:

Buying property is a risk, just like any other durable good. Sometimes they increase in value, sometimes they tank. Either way, it's none of the government's business.

Naive. Property values are a reflection of confidence in the stability of the society. If confidence in the stability of the society isn't important to the government, then the society won't attract investment.

Quote:

The government's business is: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." and that's it.

And it does that by causing wealth to evaporate?

1ball wrote: How do you save for your future when the government takes your money and gives it to somebody else?

Quote:

Don't like it?

I got around it. I haven't paid any FICA in more than a decade. I haven't paid any income tax in a while either. There's no doubt that the boomer generation has totally screwed the younger generations. People in their twenties now will be working until they die.

Quote:

Support candidates whose core values you believe in.

You believe you can actually tell the core values of the candidates? They say and do what they think will get them elected. If being elected is the only core value they have, you pretty much have to pay attention only to their party platform. Opposing the party you most don't want in power by enlisting the aid of others who oppose it is strategic.

Quote:

If there's no political party that has the same beliefs that you do, then start one.

I go back and say there is no difference. Both parties waste, both parties pander and both parties lie. Those are the provable facts. Pick up a paper and the details are there, issue after issue.

Both parties waste, because that's how candidates get reelected. The voters have to fix that.

Both parties pander, because that's how they build a base and then attract the gullible. The Dems pander to those who want what others have without going to the trouble of earning it. Entitlement minded Dem voters want a cradle to grave nanny without the behavioral rules that a good nanny would impose, but one who would impose behavioral rules on others. They want to dictate a command economy.

The Republicans pander to those who want their moral code to become the legal code and to those who want to push power back to the states, where competition between states will drive the evolution of public policy and where they can try to keep the federal government from forcing them to support people they aren't morally obligated to support.

People within both parties lie, but when a party has enough power, it must attempt to give a "win" to its base. Wins that destroy what is crucial to the society, investor confidence and productivity are more dangerous than wins that impose or defeat the social rules that both parties are fond of trying to impose on each other. Investor confidence and productivity are damaged by pandering to the entitlement minded. Perhaps in your individual case, that's good for you, so it would make sense to oppose Republicans as effectively as you can. But if that's not the case, if you actually benefit from a good economy, opposing Democrats and shifting entitlements into the realm of state governments where their effects have less impact on the national economy, makes sense. It is a win for liberty and a win for the economy.

Quote:

Now, go ahead and put the needle back on the record so we can hear again how one must suck just a little less than another. We are just dying to hear it again.

I don't believe it's a little less. I believe it's a lot less. But for you, maybe you have a business that benefits from sales to the entitlement minded. I could see why you might not want to upset your apple cart. Or maybe you just have difficulty with the idea of holding your nose and voting for the party whose social rules you don't like. I've just ignored their rules whenever I didn't like them.

The soulless shape-shifter is on a role, victory is close. Let's hope a few more voter registration cards printed by Arizona's republican party get distributed with the correct date of the election (November 6) in English and the incorrect date of 8 November in Spanish get to voters. That should do it ... Get used to President Romney.

I was so disappointed from the debate tonight! I was for Romney - even contributed to his campaign. I don't think the government should bail out companies, dump on Mubarack, and raise taxes on the rich. I think we should bomb Iran now before it's to late. These were all things the Governor has agreed with until tonight.

Now he wants a world to be at peace? What planet is he from? What happened to Mitt? What a flip-flopper!

I have no idea where he stands anymore. I am joining the move here to Congressman Paul.

Joined: 8/14/2009Posts: 6,092Location: Sharing my life with Simplicity, United States

1ball wrote:

I don't believe it's a little less. I believe it's a lot less. But for you, maybe you have a business that benefits from sales to the entitlement minded. I could see why you might not want to upset your apple cart. Or maybe you just have difficulty with the idea of holding your nose and voting for the party whose social rules you don't like. I've just ignored their rules whenever I didn't like them.

I work in comercial aerospace. Im also a manager. Hardly a field beholden to the left. I find it sad that you are unable to see beyond your own petty needs. It is just this type of short sighted self interest that dictatorship counts on.You are correct for once though. I do have difficulty with the stench, and I would rather do what is right than was is wrong. Doing otherwise for personal gain is nothing more than selling out. You can rationalize all you want, but you still have no moral compass.

As I said the argument continues ti chase its tail. I suppose it's because you are as bereft of ideas as your antiquated party is.

I find it sad that you are unable to see beyond your own petty needs. It is just this type of short sighted self interest that dictatorship counts on.You are correct for once though. I do have difficulty with the stench, and I would rather do what is right than was is wrong. Doing otherwise for personal gain is nothing more than selling out. You can rationalize all you want, but you still have no moral compass.

Your belief that voting my "own petty needs" (or yours for that matter) or for "personal gain" is inconsistent with a moral compass indicates a belief in self-sacrifice for "the common good", making you a collectivist, although many of them vote for their petty needs and their personal gain via the might makes right morality. My moral code is to live and let live and that allows voting in self-defense for a more libertarian government, not through a Libertarian party that has no chance of combating authoritarian centralization, but through actually voting directly against the party that advocates for the most centralization. To imply that I'm the one who's being selfish and not doing what is right when my best interest actually corresponds with the best chance of maintaining a viable society over the long run is playing into the hands of the more tyrannical party.

MNP, the elections are NOT held the first Tuesday in November. Election Day in America is the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. It can fall on or between November 2 and November 8. These include national, state and local government representatives at all levels up to the president. Election day this year is November 6th.

Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

Neo-comm's must be having nightmares after a warmer, fuzzier shape shifting Mitt showed up last evening in yet another identity and the sad part is he is getting traction from all this shameless pandering.

Pres. Obama doesn't come across as much better, I'm growing disenchanted with the entire process as I'm sure many are.

Let’s start with the blindingly obvious: President Obama won last night’s debate in Boca Raton, and won it easily. According to a CBS instant poll of uncommitted voters, his margin of victory was thirty points—fifty-three per cent to twenty-three per cent—a bigger margin even than the one Mitt Romney enjoyed in Denver a few weeks ago. On the question of who would better handle terrorism and national security, the split in Obama’s favor was almost as large: sixty-four per cent to thirty-six per cent.

These figures are hardly surprising. From Obama’s very first answer, when he said to his opponent, “Your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map,” to near the end, when he said, “Governor Romney, you keep trying to airbrush history,” he was the more aggressive debater, the more polished, the more persuasive, and the more punitive. Before the first debate, his aides proclaimed him above the use of “zingers.” On this occasion, he came with his pockets bulging with them, none more zingy than his crack about the military having fewer bayonets and horses than it did in 1916—a riposte that clearly had been prepared for use if Romney repeated his line about the U.S. Navy having fewer warships now than it had almost a hundred years ago, which indeed he did. Not content with mocking his opponent once, Obama proceeded to do it twice more: “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” he said. “We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

If that was the sound bite of the evening, there were lots more high moments for the President, some of them supplied, mystifyingly enough, by his opponent, who was engaged in what amounted to a shape-shifting exercise too far. Having observed how well his “Mitt the Moderate” act went down in Denver, the G.O.P. candidate had evidently decided to reprise it in the arena of foreign policy. On issue after issue—Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, the pursuit of Al Quada—he aligned himself with the Administration’s policies, backing away from his previous criticisms, and from any suggestion that he might govern as a bellicose warmonger.

Asked about the United States’ role in the world, he said: “Our purpose is to make sure the world is more—is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war.” In response to a question about how he would go beyond the Administration’s efforts to topple the Assad regime, he said: “I don’t want to have our military involved in Syria.” Nor in Afghanistan. Where previously he had questioned Obama’s commitment to bring all the troops home by 2014, he now declared: “We’re going to be finished by 2014, and when I’m President, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.” Around the country, conservatives were watching with increasing alarm. “How many times has Romney said the president is right tonight,” Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, tweeted about fifteen minutes before the end. “i thought he shld try to be a little above the fray, but this is a bit much.” Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, agreed, tweeting: “Romney’s closing statement better save this performance, or he’s a big loser tonight.”

From the very beginning, you knew something fishy was going on. In his first question of the evening, Bob Schieffer, the courtly CBS veteran, brought up the recent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. “Questions remain,” Schieffer said. “What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unravelling before our very eyes.” Uh-oh, you thought. Here comes the answer Romney should have given last week: a stinging denunciation of the Administration’s failure to provide adequate security for Stevens and his colleagues, followed by a ringing indictment of its efforts to portray a terrorist attack as a spontaneous riot.

But no. Rather than unsheathing his bayonet and ramming it into the President’s gullet, Romney said, “Mr. President, it’s good to be with you again,” and went off on a rambling discourse about the threats facing the world, taking in the Arab Spring, the carnage in Syria, the Iranian nuclear threat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in Egypt, and the takeover of “the northern part of Mali”—yes, Mali—“by Al Qaeda-type individuals.” Just when you thought he was circling back to Benghazi, Romney said, “and we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the President has done. I congratulate him on—on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in Al Qaeda. But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the—the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism.”

It was hard to know which was more shocking: Romney paying tribute to Obama, or a Republican politician saying: “We can’t kill our way out this mess.” As I was struggling to decide, Romney went on: “We don’t want another Iraq, we don’t want another Afghanistan. That’s not the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the—the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these—these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world. And how do we do that? A group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the—the world reject these—these terrorists.”

The hirsute and somewhat elderly gent keeling over in the G.O.P. green room was John Bolton, the Bush Administration hard-liner who, in 2005 and 2006, spent a year and a half camped out on the East Side trying to insult as many U.N. officials (and foreigners in general) as he could. In reaction to questions about why Romney had enlisted head cases like Bolton to his foreign-policy team, his flacks frequently pointed to the presence of less fearsome figures, such as Robert Zoellick, the former head of the World Bank. But who knew that Romney had also enlisted Katrina vanden Heuvel and Kofi Annan as advisers? Not I, anyway.

About the only time Romney got his Irish up and took the fight to Obama was when he repeated his charge that the President, at the beginning of his term, had embarked on an “apology tour” of the Middle East. Obama promptly dismissed this as “the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.” Romney, rather than saying, yet again, that he agreed with the President, came back at him, accusing him of saying on Arabic television that “America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Finally, something for Republicans to cheer about. But that was Romney’s one Reagan moment. Afterwards, however, there was some suggestion from the pundits that his entire performance had been a fiendishly clever attempt to ape what the Gipper did in 1980, during a debate with Jimmy Carter: come on all lovey-dovey and peace-loving, and thereby put to rest fears that, should he be elected, he would promptly loose one off on the Soviets. “Mitt Romney did something pretty important tonight,” David Gergen said on CNN. “He came across as a responsible-sounding Commander-in-Chief.” Over on Fox, Charles Krauthammer developed this argument further: “He stayed away from the pitfalls. He did not allow himself to to be pictured as a warmonger. I think this could help him win the election.”

I don’t buy it. If Romney does win, it will be despite this performance rather than because of it. In refusing to engage in detail about what happened in Libya, he gave up his one chance of really embarrassing the President on a specific foreign-policy issue. In constantly siding with Obama on issues of military policy and counter-terrorism—did I say he loves drone attacks?—he undermined his argument that the President’s term of office has been a failure and he needs running out of town. And in constantly reversing his previous positions, he raised anew the question that has plagued him all along: Does he actually believe in anything?

After the debate had finished, I went to a bookshelf and pulled out my copy of “The Real Romney,” a meticulously reported biography of the G.O.P. candidate that I’ve cited before because it’s probably still the best thing written on him. In their prologue, the authors, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, two reporters at the Boston Globe, recall the Mittster’s 2008 campaign, when, with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani occupying what passes for the moderate center in the G.O.P., Romney decided to recreate himself as a right-winger, shamelessly courting the social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives—“any conservatives he could find.”

The trouble was that it looked too much like opportunism—or worse, insincerity, given his long record of syncing his political views with the party’s moderate wing. “Everything could always be tweaked, reshaped, fixed, addressed,” said one former aide, describing Romney’s outlook. “It was foreign to him on policy issues that core principles mattered—that somebody would go back and say, ‘Well, three years ago you said this.’ ” The perception of expedience, along with lingering bigotry against Mormonism, helped bury his hopes.In 2012, Romney has largely overcome any anti-Mormon feeling in the party, and the country. But, as last night’s debate demonstrated, the perception of expedience will never go away because it is perfectly accurate. Indeed, it is getting worse. Where once he repudiated things he said three years ago, he now repudiates things he said three months ago, or even three weeks ago. Fourteen days from now, we will find out whether his outrageously cynical approach to campaigning pays off. Given the way the polls are going, such a possibility can’t be wholly discounted. But last night, I suspect, he went too far. The voters may be gullible. But are they that gullible?

Joined: 12/30/2011Posts: 65Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States

groucho wrote:

just to break up the 1ball and LadyX duel i'll throw out this. this is a tight race, as was predicted even before the gop primary, and actually romney was the best choice being the most centrist of the candidates. presidential elections are not won by the party hardliners or bases but by the vast middle ground of voters.

mitt stumbled greatly in august and september...the ryan pick was a pander to the base, his obstinance on tax returns, the lackluster gop convention, and the 47% fiasco...even with all that obama could only just pull ahead slightly.

the right was saying that the first debate could be a game changer for romney...i was not really buying it and hoping that obama could solidify his slight leads with his performance. i will be voting for obama but give credit to mitt and his team they had him coming out swinging and obama came out like it had been four years since he had been in a debate.

romney clearly had the bettter performance. i happen to think much of what he said was based on lies and half truths that obama did not follow through on. i.e. mitt talked a lot about wanting to take care of the poor and obama did not come back to say that we really know how you feel about the poor, mitt kept saying he was not going to cut $5billion in taxes and obama didn't come back and say that if you do what you have proposed with your across the board tax cuts the math adds up to $5 billion! maybe obama is using ali's old rope-a-dope gambit but romney was 'winner' of this first debate and i suspect that the polls will reflect that in a couple of days.

so, yeah, romney/ryan could win this election and i personally believe that would mean that dark days would be ahead for the u.s.a.

g

The dark days will be if Barry is reelected. What is going to stop him from, gutting the military? He told Mevedev, after the election I'll have more latitude, really do we want Barry to have more latitude with Russia? Gas has doubled, 15 M more on food stamps, income has gone down, 44% less drilling on public lands get rid of Barry. This kids are going to vote and they don't know shit, but they're voting for Barry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2EoZq2rXXI Barry's followers are fools http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daV7hvK7NGw&feature=relmfu

Joined: 12/30/2011Posts: 65Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States

Milik_The_Red wrote:

What issues are most important to me? Okay, as 1ball has asked the same question, here is the short answer. I want the government to stop trying to control our lives. That's my biggest concern. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gay marriage and abortion, or gun control and freedom of religion, (as opposed to freedom FROM religion as the courts see it)

However you cut it, We the People are being treated like We the children. I don't affiliate with a party because they both violate our rights equally, and if one is willing to let someone else's one shot at life be lessened and controlled, then how can one expect others to stand up for them?

I don't think both side are at all equal. True, the Republicans get too hung up on abortion. They believe it's there job to "protect life" I am not pro-abortion and I do believe it is the woman's choice. If she is young, teenager, or she can't take care of a baby, she should have not made one, but that ship already sailed. If she can not care for a baby she should not be made to, pure and simple. The Proggies want to be a nammy state, that's too far the other way. Maybe you are really in line with the Tea Party. Small, limited gubmint, fewer rules, more freedom, It works for me.

Joined: 12/30/2011Posts: 65Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States

Hasabrain2 wrote:

If Romeny gets elected it will be the because beleive his lies. Obama says he think everyone should have health and voila, you have OBama care. You may or may not agree with, but you can't claim he didn't do what he said he would. Same with regulating the credit markets, he said he would and he did. He said he would increaseing funding for Pell grants and he did. He said he would devote money to solar energy projects and he did. (The Repbulicans love to point out that one of these projects lost millions of dollars. It did, but the other 35 projects suceeded. Most CEOs would be thrilled with a 35 and 1 record).

Romney promises 12 million jobs. No modern president has come close to that (the closest would be Bill Clinton at 9 million). I'd like to say I canbench press 300 pounds, but realistically that's never going to happen.

God forbid Romeny get elected and does what he says. Then we would have 50 Medicare plans, you'd have seniors moving state to state trying to get the best plan and fifty different state agencies trying to learn how to provide medical care for seniors.

Mitt can make jobs. It's called the Laffer Curve. Charge less sell more. Walmart proves it everyday. Lower taxes on everbody raise revenue. Kennedy did it, Reagan did it, and he doubled revenue, and W did it. Slick Willy was riding the stock market boom, the internet boom and he didn't make jobs, he stayed out of the way. He rode it for 6 or 7 years and then handed it off to W and we were already slowing down, before the election. Remember under W average unemployment was 5.26% gas was under $2 average, gold was half what it is now and 15M fewer people were on food stamps. Remember under W we were not monetizing the debt, how long can Gentle Ben and Barry fool the masses? 4 years so far, but it is ending. The emails for State are coming out, Barry lied, UN Ambassador Rice lied, BArry went out in the Rose Garden and lied about Benghazi. He went to the UN and said 6 times in his speech it was the video, wrong.

Joined: 12/30/2011Posts: 65Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States

Guest wrote:

Lets get the phone lady facts straight and do some research and thinking of our own. That program was started by Ronald Reagan and continued heavily during the Bush years so it is a program started by Republicans .

True but Barry let it grow to a new high, plus who's making money off the cell phones? The gubmint pays the carrier $10 for what costs the carrier maybe $3 a month. Why do people have dozens of cell phones, if this was land lines they'd have only one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

Joined: 12/30/2011Posts: 65Location: The wild environs of Lake Michigan, United States

Hasabrain2 wrote:

If Romeny gets elected it will be the because beleive his lies. Obama says he think everyone should have health and voila, you have OBama care. You may or may not agree with, but you can't claim he didn't do what he said he would. Same with regulating the credit markets, he said he would and he did. He said he would increaseing funding for Pell grants and he did. He said he would devote money to solar energy projects and he did. (The Repbulicans love to point out that one of these projects lost millions of dollars. It did, but the other 35 projects suceeded. Most CEOs would be thrilled with a 35 and 1 record).

Romney promises 12 million jobs. No modern president has come close to that (the closest would be Bill Clinton at 9 million). I'd like to say I canbench press 300 pounds, but realistically that's never going to happen.

God forbid Romeny get elected and does what he says. Then we would have 50 Medicare plans, you'd have seniors moving state to state trying to get the best plan and fifty different state agencies trying to learn how to provide medical care for seniors.

Oil is cheaper than solar and wind because of the sunk costs in the infrastructure. Solyndra went under because the cost of making panels is dropping further and faster than was expected. Again the issue is one of capacity, the Chinese manufacturers ramped up their production by an order of magnitude. that allowed them to amortize their development costs over many more panels.

Don't worry though, that is the plan. The only country that matters as far as renewables go right now is China which is growing its energy demand by the equivalent of total UK power use each year. So the UK government has a consulate at MIT which is helping transfer their renewables technology to China as fast as is possible.

Global warming is real and it is the biggest security threat the world faces right now. All those wars going on in the horn of Africa are being driven by climate change. The crops fail, wars start.

The amount spent on renewables is a pittance compared to the $250 million cost of one fighter jet to fight an enemy that does not even exist any more.Most of the loan guarantees on both go to deployment of generation capacity. Those are paying back.

Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

I saw on the endangered PBS last night the teaparty's attempt to reverse findings on global warming by real scientists [97% agree that climate change is a real danger] that is funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers making it politicly easy for neo-comms to duck the issues that will affect the next generations.

I also saw in the news that Pa. gave permission to frack for oil below a nuclear power plant!

Insanely greedy humans that we are we wont be happy until this country looks like a reclaimation site with no drinkable water, a wonderful legacy to pass on to future generations.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.